Appeal No. 2003-0604
Application No. 09/307,544
With regard to the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejections of claims 1-13 over claims 1-10 of
09/296,217 and over claims 1-10 of co-pending application
09/296,216, in view of Sydansk, the examiner correctly indicates
at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of the Answer,
that appellant’s brief does not contain an argument which
specifies errors regarding these provisional rejections. Hence,
we affirm each of these rejections.
Other Issues
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, we ask the examiner to review the following patents
regarding the issue of obvious-type double patenting, and to
make of record that such review was conducted:
1. Burts, Jr., Published Jan. 25, 2000, 6,016,879;
2. Burts, Jr., Published Jan, 25, 2000, 6,016,871;
3. Burts, Jr., Published Aug. 8, 2000, 6,098,712; and
4. Burts, Jr., Published Aug. 15, 2000, 6,102,121.
CONCLUSION
Each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections is reversed.
Each of the provisional rejections under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007